Video: New “Great Gatsby” movie looks as grotesque as you’d expect

posted at 6:01 pm on May 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

I don’t mean that as a criticism. Hollywood’s been trying for 90 years to get the tone of the novel right and pretty clearly they’re never going to nail it — even Coppola’s treatment couldn’t produce a film worthy of the source — so why not stop trying and go crazy with the Cheez Whiz? Visual Cheez Whiz is, after all, what a Baz Luhrmann movie is all about. You don’t go to see this because you’re interested in an elegy for the Jazz Age. You see it because you’re 16 and Leo’s in it and Peter Parker’s his sidekick and there’s a romance and the art deco looks slick and, well, there’s just a lot of Cheez Whiz onscreen. And that soundtrack.

Exit question: Is America ready for a story about a man with a shadowy past and invented identity who saw his wildest dreams come true, only to have it all come crashing down around him?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

One real filmic problem with adapting “The Great Gatsby” is: not a lot happens. A series of dinners, lunches, parties, and one hit-and-run. Character is revealed through description and dialogue, not, as is needed in a medium based on images in motion, action. So the actors needed to pull this off must be extraordinarily talented and perfectly suited for their roles. (Not DiCaprio for this, no.) And, somehow, “atmosphere” must compensate for the lack of lyrical prose. And still it wouldn’t come off.

In “Final Cut.” his post-mortem of “Heaven’s Gate,” the biggest flop in Hollywood history to date, UA exec producer Steven Bach wrote that, despite its amazing production values, the film “lacked a certain narrative density.” That has been Gatsby’s downfall as a movie every time.

You know who might take an interesting shot at it? Affinity for jazz, good with period productions, and excellent with actors? Clint Eastwood.

The only famous actor I can think of off the top of my head that truly acts is Tom Hanks. He can believably become different characters.

ButterflyDragon on May 23, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Maybe when he was younger and tried harder because he wanted to get established, but I think he’s at the stage now where he’s coasting. I was just watching “That Thing You Do,” which was on TV again over the weekend, and noticed that the acting he did as the band manager in that movie was pretty much interchangeable with his FBI character in “Catch Me If You Can.” On the other hand, maybe he just doesn’t do well with secondary roles, because he did give terrific performances in “Apollo 13,” and “Forrest Gump.”

You know who might take an interesting shot at it? Affinity for jazz, good with period productions, and excellent with actors? Clint Eastwood.

de rigueur on May 23, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I would have loved to have seen an adaptation by Welles, with his dynamic visual style, his affinity for self-willed frauds and fakes, and his acute sense of nostalgia.

Late period Altman could have produced something wistful and diaphanous.

If I am going to go out on a limb, Wong Kar-wai, with his aching romanticism, an all Chinese cast (Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung, reunited from In The Mood for Love?), and the story transposed to Shanghai just before WWII. Sometimes that sort of thing works better than the obvious.

You mean in this latest version, Jay is the Manchurian Candidate and media darling who gets elected POTUS and then transforms into Captain Americawrecker?

This hero flies around the planet and says he is sorry for everything and has a reset button from some witch to balm mortal enemies? (not bomb, balm!)

At the end, he is shown shooting hoops with some friends when he is evicted from the mansion by “Dog the Bounty Hunter” serving an eviction notice and warrant for arrest for six thousand counts of fraud.

Then you are left wondering whether Dog ended up being dinner as the screen goes black.

I would have loved to have seen an adaptation by Welles, with his dynamic visual style, his affinity for self-willed frauds and fakes, and his acute sense of nostalgia.

Late period Altman could have produced something wistful and diaphanous.

If I am going to go out on a limb, Wong Kar-wai, with his aching romanticism, an all Chinese cast (Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung, reunited from In The Mood for Love?), and the story transposed to Shanghai just before WWII. Sometimes that sort of thing works better than the obvious.

Mr. Arkadin on May 23, 2012 at 9:09 PM

There are those who argue that I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE is the best adaptation of JANE EYRE ever.

Welles could have pulled it off, given enough financial support and self discipline. Joseph Cotton as Gatsby?

There are those who argue that I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE is the best adaptation of JANE EYRE ever.

ebrown2 on May 23, 2012 at 9:31 PM

It is, althought the straight 1943 version, with Welles as Rochester, and in which Welles might have had a hand in the direction, is a pretty solid adaptation of that classic. Certainly better than, in my opinion, the rather dire 1939 Wuthering Heights.

In 1954, during his “Mexican” period, Luis Bunuel wrote and directed a very low budget version of Wuthering Heights that does a much better job of capturing the perverse passion and hysteria of the novel than does Wyler’s bloodless version.

Surprisingly, Bunuel did a great, straightforward job with Robinson Crusoe, as well.

Geez. Tough crowd. My friends and I were just talking about going to the premier of this downtown wearing flapper outfits. FUN!

I think it looks great. I love the book, and I like the splashy visuals in the previews. In a lot of ways, the book was all about the glitz and glam so visual cheese whiz seems totally appropriate. DiCaprio does always play the same character, but he picks good roles. Inception and Shutter Island were awesome.

Actually, it’s not worth getting “right.” It’s a depressing story about vapid, self-absorbed people who care about little else. It’s the perfect companion to “A Streetcar Named Desire.”

The list of so-called “great American classics” all suck.

Stoic Patriot on May 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Or a withering social critique of vapid, self-absorbed people who care about little else. It’s both a celebration of the American Dream and a condemnation about how certain people view that dream.

I agree with those of you who say that The Great Gatsby is unfilmable.. A lot of what makes the book is the elegant prose that just absorbs you.. like the eyes and the green light. It’s also a very slow burn which really means that Luhrmann is basically filming a totally different movie.

I am wondering why they are wasting the time and money to release this movie in 3D. That makes absolutely no sense, unless the director thinks the audience is going to get a thrill out of a giant cigar sticking out at them from the screen.

Martin Scorsese has said that all future films he releases from now on will be in 3D, but considering he proved through his outstanding movie Hugo that he is the only director in cinema right now who knows the right way to use 3D, I see no problem with his plans.

Even “The Avengers” used 3D correctly to enhance the story.

Anyone else out there is using it as a gimmick and that is what I am seeing with the reboot of the Great Gatsby.

We saw how well DiCaprio did in a movie where he did not have much to work with in “J Edgar.” ‘Nuff said. At least they didn’t go with Matt Damon. Redford was a good choice: good looking, empty without any pretense that there was any “there” there.

Great actors who can disappear in a part? John Malkovich; Daniel Day Lewis; Robert Duvall. If they wanted a young guy who shows some range though mostly action, what about Karl Urban (Cooper in “Red”), or for that matter Colin Hanks?

Good call! About 20 years too late to be Jay Gatsby (age 32 in the book), unfortunately, but he could have pulled it off. He can do romantic, sinister, driven, and hard-boiled simultaneously. And he has a real knack for playing mysterious, self-invented characters.